The various Bitcoin clients all use the same definitions for the Bitcoin addresses that send to each other. It is a bit like different email software using the same sorts of email addresses and being compatible.

In terms of the underlying code it is completely different - it is written in Java instead of C++.

Generally I recommend having separate addresses in different clients. There is the capability to import the blockchain.info backups into MultiBit but this is mainly in case blockchain.info gets DDOSed and people need to access their funds. It's simpler to create new addresses in MultiBit and just send the bitcoin from one client to another.

As I type I think Instawallet is advising people not to send any bitcoin to Instawallet addresses. Whilst their service is unavailable this is good advice I think.

You can always install MultiBit and send yourself a few millis from another client. Try it out and see if you like it. You can run the Satoshi client and MultiBit on the same machine at the same time.

i have a wallet for freebee bitcoins i collect on those sites giving out bitcoins, then i send those coins once i get a bunch to my MAIN wallet been doing that for over a month now.(both wallets are in multibit)

now i have tried 3 different times to send some coin like this and it is only coming up seen by 1 peer but not seen in block chain. (i am sending the 0.001 required tx fee)

i was using 0.4.20 and then after i had trouble the first time i upgraded to 0.4.23 and still happened again, i had reset block chain from a date 1 day before that transaction and the bitcoins just disappear from both wallets......so i then reset form original date and all bitcoins are back so i try to send to main wallet again and it just keeps being seen by 1 peer but not showing up in either block explorer or blockchain......i dont know what to do?

Note section 2.1 which is the most likely cause.The only real answer is to increase the miners' fee you add and to be patient after the send. If you search the forum there are anecdotal reports of these sorts of transactions taking a day or two to confirm (across all clients - it's not particularly a MultiBit thing).

Lots of small transaction outputs are becoming quite problematical to spend as the miners' fee can be more than their actual value.

I am using MultiBit-0.5.8beta, and generally I am having a great experience using it. Thank you for developing this awesome client.

I think I already mentioned the following in an earlier post, but want to get some update:

When creating a new wallet (or when starting the first installed version) MultiBit creates one address.The wallet by default is unencrypted, so the private key for this first address in the wallet will be stored unencrypted in the filesystem.At this time, malicious software on the computer would be able the seize the private key.Therefore, I consider this private key and the corresponding public address to be insecure.Even if later on you encrypt the wallet, the private key for this first address might already be compromised and could some months later be used by an attacker to seize the bitcoins stored at this address.

This behaviour I find especially troublesome due to the following reasons:I. Change is sent back specifically to this first address. It can happen that large amounts are stored in this address due to this behaviour.II. Now that MultiBit is the #1 recommended client on bitcoin.org for novice users (congratulations!), many people are using this client and more to come. This makes it a bigger target for attackers.

How do you want to close this tiny (but nonetheless existing) security hole?Will there be a version without the first address generated by default?

I think what I will end up doing is:+ the wallet that is created by default for new users will have one address in like now and initially be unencrypted. This is for usability for newbies.

But - when you click on New Wallet you will open a tab where you select things like:

+ wallet location+ description+ wallet type+ number of keys to put in it initially+ password

That way a new encrypted wallet will only ever have existed as encrypted.

That will probably go into the next round of "UI work".

Also, change (in the 0.4.23 release and the coming 0.5.9beta release) now goes to the SECOND address in the wallet - if it exists - so that the initial key is not used. This I put in as I found people were importing keys from "somewhere" and then not liking that the change was not going to one of their imported keys. This would also fix change going to a key that was at one point stored unencrypted as you point out.

Also, change (in the 0.4.23 release and the coming 0.5.9beta release) now goes to the SECOND address in the wallet - if it exists - so that the initial key is not used. This I put in as I found people were importing keys from "somewhere" and then not liking that the change was not going to one of their imported keys. This would also fix change going to a key that was at one point stored unencrypted as you point out.

What if BEFORE importing the wallet contained already more than one key?In this case people would still experience that after importing keys the change is sent to an address outside their original 'somewhere' wallet.

To circumvent this, may I suggest that you send the change always to the LAST key of a wallet instead of the second key.

Of course people could import keys from multiple wallets or create new keys after the import, giving the same unwanted result as with the current solution (change to 1st key).

But there is an additional advantage to it:Experienced users who want a 'fresh' address for the change of their next transaction can simply create a new address before spending.For users who want to obfuscate the addresses they control, this could be helpful.Because if the change is always sent to the same address this allows to easily track down which keys belong to the same wallet after a spend with change has been made.On the other hand, if the change is sent always to a fresh address an analysis will not be able to link addresses which send change to the same address.

Hello mate i have some problem in my wallet there is no transaction from 4 months in my wallet and yesterday a guy send me few BTC on my btc address but still not received on blockchain. 177 confirmation on blockchain but in my wallet still no BTC has been credited kindly please help me out

when i try reset blockchain and transaction option it gives me error -> Blockchain replay was unsuccessful. Error was "java.nio.channels.ClosedChannelException".

I just installed the latest version of multibit on my usb-drive and its looking good

2 quick questions:- when will wallet-encryption be included?- Is it possible to add one extra button/screen to the installer so that you can choose the portable option e.g. multibit.properties is created for you.